DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 4 February 1999 Volume 04 : Number 090 In this issue: Re: fusible link questions Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 SVO A4 shortblock for sale Re: fusible link questions Re: MAP manipulations Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Re: fusible link questions Re: fusible link questions Re: fusible link questions Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Re: any one played with MR2 superchargers? Newbie questions 730/808 questions Re: Newbie questions Re: fusible link questions Re: 808 Request Re: 92 tracker ecm Re: 730/808 questions Re: 730/808 questions Re: 730/808 questions Re: More UEGO stuff Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Re: PulseWidthModulation comments See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Ford Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:44:59 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 KD6JDJ@xxx.com wrote: > Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:51:16 EST > From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: fusible link questions > > Reply to Pat Ford > I didnt intend to get into a long exchange of design criticism when I put my > 2 cents in to this fusable link question answering post. fair enough > On some (many) cars the wire that connects the alt. + to the battery+ is > used as a shunt for the ammeter. > When the ammeter must display both charge and discharge, the load that will > be monitored for discharge must be connected to the alt. side of the shunt. > So, the designers sometimes chose to put the link in that path. > Sure there are ocassional problems as a result -- but they are few. I dissagree > > I wanted to inform thoes of us that are rewiring an alternator + to battery+ > that a fusable link is not needed. just as fuses are optional > > Also -- An alternator is not designed so that its diodes limit its output > current. The stator does that. I think I said that the regulator limits current ( buts it's been a long day) ( the mechanical regulators had an overcurrent cutoff) > > Yeah , I assume that ALL critical wires will be connected dirrectly to the > battery , for the reason you state. > > For what it is worth -- Delco puts Avalanch diodes in their negative side of > the bridge to 'suck up' thoes destructive transients. > I VERY strongly dissagree here just for giggles put a set of jumper cables from your car to another without a battery put a scope on the battery and watch the "load jump"> there may be diodes there but they wont stop the load jump > Jerry > Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:53:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > >Re: TC's and manual trans (was: Re: Smooth strategy) > > > > > > > > > >>>No way--a two element torque converter is a violation of Newton's laws!!>> > > > >>>Regards, Greg>> > > > >Greg > >I don't know much about Newton's laws however I have been under cars for > >the last 45 years, working mostly on auto trans. so I know a little bit > >about torque converters. To get torque multiplication in a 2 element TC > >you need curved vanes plus a different number of blades (vanes) in the > >turbine and impeller. There was usually a split guide ring (doughnut) as > >well. While this arrangement is not as effective as a TC with a stator > >it nevertheless multiplies torque and is therfore correctly termed a > >Torque converter. > > > >Theo from downunder > > Let's don't mistake slip--lock-up speed characteristics for torque > multiplication. If you have torque A coming into the unit on the input > shaft, and torque B going out of it on the output shaft, For A to be > different from B, there has GOT to be a torque reaction against the case. > No way out of it. Otherwise we are talking about a close kin of the famous > (?) 300mpg carburettor! > Actaully I think this is how it works. The reason it multiplies is much simpler, rpmin != rpmout. The easy model is more like rpmin*torquein = rpmout*torqueout*efficiency. I don't believe there is a torque reaction against the case (except waht is actually decreasing efficiency). Basically if rpmout is 10% less that rpmin, then you could boost torque by an appropiate amount to make the quation balance out. Also generally this is probably a max torque multiplication which may complicate the model above more, but I have used this model in some program I have written and it is pretty accurate with street convertors, with the high slippage convertors the model above does not work exactly right. It is really no different that having a gear that multiplies torque except it is less efficent and somewhat more variable on the multiplications. ------------------------------ From: silent50@xxx.com Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:19:03 -0600 Subject: SVO A4 shortblock for sale Guys: I am getting out of the game and this could be your lucky day. I have an SVO A4 assembled shortblock for sale, only $4500. Includes A4 block bored 0.060 (safe to 0.080), AMS 6415 (mil spec E4340) forged crank, internally balanced, Oliver 5.4" billet rods, Ross dished pistons (17cc dish gives 8.4:1 CR with 64cc chamber) and ATI damper. This shortblock was built for a blower motor making about 850-900hp. My loss is your gain. I will even pay shipping to a business location. The wife wants this sold now. Thanks. Mike silent50@xxx.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: AL8001@xxx.com Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:38:18 EST Subject: Re: fusible link questions In a message dated 99-02-04 16:50:15 EST, pford@xxx.com writes: >> >> Also -- An alternator is not designed so that its diodes limit its output >> current. The stator does that. > >I think I said that the regulator limits current ( buts it's been a long >day) ( the mechanical regulators had an overcurrent cutoff) > > Mechanical regulators for generators had current limiting and voltage relays. Mechanical and electronic regulators for alternators have voltage limiting only. Batteries used in a old generator system seemed to last forever while the same type/brand battery would have a limited life in a alternator system. Lead acid automotive batteries like a short/high current discharge and a long/ low current recharge. The current limiting a generator provides helps battery life. A alternator is current limited by the size of the stator windings and , to a lesser extent, the size of the rotor ( field ) windings. Harold ------------------------------ From: "soren" Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:05:05 -0800 Subject: Re: MAP manipulations >Are there any current designs or thoughts on modifying the output of a 5v >MAP sensor. > >1. Moving the output up or down by a fixed amount over the entire operating >range. > >2. Change the gain of the output up or down. > >3. Not letting the output exceed 5v. A friend of mine has a diagram for #3 posted at www.rio.com/~kca/fce.htm It is meant to eliminate the fuel cut that occurs at about 14 psi on his Isuzu Impulse, but should work for limiting the signal of any 5V reference MAP sensor. Soren ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:35:08 -0700 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 >On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > >> >Re: TC's and manual trans (was: Re: Smooth strategy) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>>No way--a two element torque converter is a violation of Newton's laws!!>> >> > >> >>>Regards, Greg>> >> > >> >Greg >> >I don't know much about Newton's laws however I have been under cars for >> >the last 45 years, working mostly on auto trans. so I know a little bit >> >about torque converters. To get torque multiplication in a 2 element TC >> >you need curved vanes plus a different number of blades (vanes) in the >> >turbine and impeller. There was usually a split guide ring (doughnut) as >> >well. While this arrangement is not as effective as a TC with a stator >> >it nevertheless multiplies torque and is therfore correctly termed a >> >Torque converter. >> > >> >Theo from downunder >> >> Let's don't mistake slip--lock-up speed characteristics for torque >> multiplication. If you have torque A coming into the unit on the input >> shaft, and torque B going out of it on the output shaft, For A to be >> different from B, there has GOT to be a torque reaction against the case. >> No way out of it. Otherwise we are talking about a close kin of the famous >> (?) 300mpg carburettor! >> > >Actaully I think this is how it works. The reason it multiplies is >much simpler, rpmin != rpmout. The easy model is more like >rpmin*torquein = rpmout*torqueout*efficiency. I don't believe there >is a torque reaction against the case (except waht is actually >decreasing efficiency). Basically if rpmout is 10% less that rpmin, >then you could boost torque by an appropiate amount to make the >quation balance out. Also generally this is probably a max torque >multiplication which may complicate the model above more, but I have >used this model in some program I have written and it is pretty >accurate with street convertors, with the high slippage convertors the >model above does not work exactly right. It is really no different >that having a gear that multiplies torque except it is less efficent >and somewhat more variable on the multiplications. A manual tranny has a torque reaction when in other than direct drive--you are just not aware of it, cuz the bell housing puts it into the engine and thence into the motor mounts. OK--consider--when you have a busted motor mount with a manual tranny--is the engine more likely to lift up off of it in first gear or high gear when you jump the throttle?? Same principle. The manual tranny puts its torque reaction into its case via the countershaft (layshaft in Brit-speak) bearings when in a gear that multiplies torque. There simply HAS GOT to be a third, reaction element for torque to either increase or decrease in a transmission, coupling, or torque converter of any sort. Doesn't matter what the speeds are doing, input torque, output torque and reaction torque must sum to zero. Don't know how else to say it, let alone be any more plain about it!! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 19:48:39 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions Pat Ford wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Steve Sassine wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:43:22 +1100 (EST) > > From: Steve Sassine > > To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu > > Subject: Re: fusible link questions > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The fusable link is intended to protect the wiring harness from frying - > > > > through out the vehicle. It is the weakest link in the wiring 'chain'. They > > > > normally have a high temperature insulation that also protects any adjacent > > > > wires from being burned. > > > > > > Clive > > > > SNIP > > a large amount of current will be deleivered to the field winding which > > will inturn give an output voltage well in excess of 20V plus. This > > voltage level will take out many electronic equipment > > (radio,alarm,electronic wind screen controller etc.). > > Canadain tire used to sell a box that would output 120 vdc from the > alternator. it just full fielded the alt and at around 1500 rpm 120 v > > scarry eh > > > > > I have seen this happen on a toyota corona, but some of the > > devices are fused seperatly to protect against high voltages. > > > > > > > > Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com > QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com > (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews > (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 Scary thing is, it worked. BEL was one manufacturer, among others. My father, an electrical contractor, had one on his dodge van and used it to run the drill to rough in an AWFUL lot of houses in the seventies. The truck sat there at a fast idle for half a day and the house was done ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0700 Subject: Re: fusible link questions >In a message dated 99-02-04 16:50:15 EST, pford@xxx.com writes: > >>> >>> Also -- An alternator is not designed so that its diodes limit its output >>> current. The stator does that. >> >>I think I said that the regulator limits current ( buts it's been a long >>day) ( the mechanical regulators had an overcurrent cutoff) >> >> > >Mechanical regulators for generators had current limiting and voltage relays. >Mechanical and electronic regulators for alternators have voltage limiting >only. > >Batteries used in a old generator system seemed to last forever while the same >type/brand battery would have a limited life in a alternator system. Lead >acid automotive batteries like a short/high current discharge and a long/ low >current recharge. The current limiting a generator provides helps battery >life. > >A alternator is current limited by the size of the stator windings and , to a >lesser extent, the size of the rotor ( field ) windings. > > >Harold OK--so who's gonna be the first to suggest building a device to limit the charging rate of the battery (and to correct charging voltage (to the battery only) for battery temperature, while we're at it?? Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 20:29:48 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions At 05:56 PM 2/4/99 -0700, you wrote: > >OK--so who's gonna be the first to suggest building a device to limit the >charging rate of the battery (and to correct charging voltage (to the >battery only) for battery temperature, while we're at it?? Chrysler! On my 95 neon there was a battery temp sensor and the PCM controlled the alternator. Charging voltage varied with temp. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 20:33:01 -0500 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Greg Hermann wrote: Give up Greg, it is a torque converter by definition and by design, whether it MULTIPLIES torque or not. It produces a LOT more torque than a fluid coupling with straight vanes - at a MUCH higher efficiency. It is no longer in common use so give the poor thing a rest - we don't have to proove you don't know it all - none of us do. ------------------------------ From: "Steve N." Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:51:49 -0600 Subject: Re: any one played with MR2 superchargers? > specifically, anyone ever taken one of these off the MR@ and used it > somewhere else, like say a rotory. From what I've read about them they > aren't to big, and have a very nice blowoff valve/SC bypass system built > in. Plus they have the electronic cultch built in the pully. Any experts > on these guys? Well, not really an expert, but mr2 mailing list veteran of 3 years, owner of the AW11 (body name for MKI Mr2) Archive, and own an 87. First off, you can go to my page at the bottom and get some more info on the SC. There is also and SC dedicated web page. www.mr2sc.com Both pages have a tech article written up about the SC. The SC itself cannot flow much over 210-220 HP. The stock boost is around 7-8 psi and the HKS pulley will get you around 10 or so. There are also two other pulleys that are made for the SC, one by Blitz that will give around 12 and one by Cusco that gives around 13-14. The Cusco pulley requires modification to the Mr2 engine for the pulley to fit right. Obviously the psi is all dependent on the engine it goes into, as modifications to the Mr2 head to increase flow will bring the psi down, as the SC simply flows a certain amount at a certain rpm based on the pulley ratio. Either way, the air coming out of the thing at these temps are VERY VERY high. It has been said that for the stock boost they run, the SC is pretty good, and a good inter cooler will help some, but above the Blitz pulley you are going kinda on the ragged edge. At this point, many Mr2 owners are running around 170 Hp on an unmodded engine. With flow improvements you can get to the 195-210HP range. > try asking this on the mr2 list (thnk its at mr2.com) Yes, there are some knowledgeable people there, but most don't know actual specifics about the SC. Most people just swap entire SC engines into their car and don't worry about the SC itself. Actually, there was an FSAE team a few years ago that ran one of these things on a Honda 600 if I remember correct... > they probably do not flow enough air for a rotary This is where a twin charging system comes in. A notorious kit for the Mr2 that was once made by HKS was the twin charger kit. It was basically a turbo kit that went onto the SC engine. There were something like 5 kits sold in the Us and they ran around $6k. HKS is often refered to as HK$. Their stuff is often good but usually VERY expensive. There are only 3-4 twin charged cars known to exist. There are two in highly modded states that run around 300-350HP. Woners of the kit often had problems with trying to get both the SC and the turbo to spool up at the right times. The SC would come up quick to kill lag, and then the turbo would hit. You had to get the SC to hit just right by using the clutch system on it, then have a good turbo curve to keep the power band at least somewhat smooth. One of the guys I know that has one, is currently trying to find a way to let the SC kick in when you first hit the throttle, but then bypass the SC once the turbo gets spooled up. If you want to use this on your rotary, this would probably work. I have some more info on the twin charged cars on my page. I also have some more stuff, but have not had a chance to update the page in a while.... Steve N. AW11 Archive: http://www2.msstate.edu/~sgn1/MR2/mkimr2.htm ------------------------------ From: "Jim Yeagley" Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:38:36 -0500 Subject: Newbie questions EFI gurus, I've been lurking her for a while, soaking it in. My EFI project is a 1975 Pontiac Grandville, 400 cid. The car is a convertible that sits around a lot here in northern Ohio, so I started thinking about injection a couple years ago to avoid all the carb problems that come from sitting. It wasn't until I found this list that I knew it would be possible. I would like to use a GM TBI system, say from a Chevy Caprice or truck, since I've had a little experience a few years back with GM computers. Now for the questions. What (if any) is the difference between Chevy car systems and truck systems? If I use a late model Ford fuel pump, frame mounted, is the regulator in the throttle body? Will a 305 throttle body have enough cfm for my 400? I've been reading here about different software/hardware for communicating with the car's computer, but I admit I haven't been able to pick up much. I have a little experience with OTC Monitor 2000 and 4000, but they couldn't change any settings. Can someone explain the basic idea behind changing (and figuring out the changes needed) the prom? >From what I can tell, there's a program that allows you to hook up a laptop, kind of intercept the signals and change them between the cars computer and the engine, test the changes, then save them. Does this sound right? Then, how do you get these changes into a new prom? Geez, that's enough for now. Thanks for your patience and answers, or at the least the entertainment from reading all the posts to this list. Jim Yeagley ------------------------------ From: Eric Aos Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:17:25 -0800 Subject: 730/808 questions 1. I just got a 6 Cyl. 730 ECU that will be used in a stock (for now) Pontiac 400 V8 Application. Would a bin for a 92 TPI 5.7 be a good starting place? and where might I find one? 2. I've read up on Programming 808, but how does the 165/808 relate to the 727/730 ? same tables, just different locations? 3. Has anyone used the Promgrammer98 from the SyTy page? will it work with the 730? 4. On the FTP Index page there is a AUJP bin listed for the 1227737, is that supposed to be 1227730? Eric (The more I learn, the less I know) Aos ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:04:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Newbie questions - -----Original Message----- From: Jim Yeagley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 8:51 PM Subject: Newbie questions snip > >What (if any) is the difference between Chevy car systems and truck systems? Cars usually use a Air Temp Sensor. Trucks might be considered high torgue applications. >If I use a late model Ford fuel pump, frame mounted, is the regulator in >the throttle body? Don't know >Will a 305 throttle body have enough cfm for my 400? Not really, but the throttle body off of a Big Block Chevy Truck would. > >I've been reading here about different software/hardware for communicating >with the car's computer, but I admit I haven't been able to pick up much. I >have a little experience with OTC Monitor 2000 and 4000, but they couldn't >change any settings. Can someone explain the basic idea behind changing >(and figuring out the changes needed) the prom? You have to make changes in the prom to change the timing or fueling. >>From what I can tell, there's a program that allows you to hook up a laptop, >kind of intercept the signals and change them between the cars computer and >the engine, test the changes, then save them. Does this sound right? Ther is a device called an emulator that goes where the prom goes that you can edit things (using a laptop), and then burn a prom. Then, >how do you get these changes into a new prom? > >Geez, that's enough for now. Thanks for your patience and answers, or at >the least the entertainment from reading all the posts to this list. > >Jim Yeagley > > ------------------------------ From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:12:58 EST Subject: Re: fusible link questions Pat You have a lot to learn about charging systems , but I gauge from your responses to my post that you are not interested in learning from me I dont expect that there are many readers on this newsgroup who care much about either alternators or generators -- BUT : The DC generators used current limiters because they could easily burn themselfs up when their loads were too high. Alternators are not as sensitive to this high load problem. The stator is the only parameter that limits the maximum available alternator output. The field (rotor) and RPM , as well as rotor to stator clearance, will greatly affect the alternarors performance. An alternator's regulator will 'regulate' on voltage , not on current. Jerry ------------------------------ From: Vance Rose Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:14:34 -0800 Subject: Re: 808 Request At 09:53 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Hello All, > I have a request, hopefully someone here can help me out. I have 2 >vehicles that I have transplanted TPI into. One is a 305/t-5 and the other >is a 350/700r. I have a bad MAF on the 305, and would like to use this as an >excuse to change over to a MAP style setup to eliminate some of my plumbing >nightmare. Since I am using the 165 ECM, I am thinking of using a 808 >calibration (ASBX ?). As I understand it, ASBX was for a 5.0L motor, so it >should be pretty close? I can hadle the wiring differences. But not the >Eprom. This is where it gets tricky. I don't have (or have access to) an >EPROM burner. Would anyone on the list be willing to burn the required chip? >I will pay for time, shipping, the chip itself, etc. > Or, would I be better off to just go and get a 730 and a Memcal for a >comparable Camaro/Firebird (More $$$)? My plan is to eventually put MAP on >the other car also, but I know the calibration is probably too far off. One >step at a time. >Thanks for any input or correction, >Jon Fedock > >Hi Jon If you are in the US, recommend 730 ecm. Can burn eprom if ya need live in north ca - contact me off list. I'm still looking for v-8 Memcal for 730 ecm Vance ------------------------------ From: "Xwiredtva" Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:29:23 -0500 Subject: Re: 92 tracker ecm 100% Zuk! >Hi All > do any of you know what ecm my tracker uses ( if it's a >gm or suzuki) > >thanks > >Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com >QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com >(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews >(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 > > ------------------------------ From: Vance Rose Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:28:03 -0800 Subject: Re: 730/808 questions At 12:17 PM 2/4/1999 -0800, you wrote: >1. I just got a 6 Cyl. 730 ECU that will be used in a stock (for now) >Pontiac 400 V8 Application. Would a bin for a 92 TPI 5.7 be a good >starting place? and where might I find one? > >2. I've read up on Programming 808, but how does the 165/808 relate to >the 727/730 ? same tables, just different locations? > >3. Has anyone used the Promgrammer98 from the SyTy page? will it work >with the 730? > >4. On the FTP Index page there is a AUJP bin listed for the 1227737, is >that supposed to be 1227730? > > >Eric (The more I learn, the less I know) Aos > >Hi Eric To use 730 with a v-8 you will need to get a v-8 memcal. Believe aujp is for 730 and is from 90-92 vette auto trans Vance ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:43:25 -0500 Subject: Re: 730/808 questions - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Aos To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 9:20 PM Subject: 730/808 questions >1. I just got a 6 Cyl. 730 ECU that will be used in a stock (for now) >Pontiac 400 V8 Application. Would a bin for a 92 TPI 5.7 be a good >starting place? Yes and where might I find one? 332 FTP for the bin, but you need to use a v-8 memcal (the blue thingy) > >2. I've read up on Programming 808, but how does the 165/808 relate to >the 727/730 ? same tables, just different locations? >From the theory side, they are similiar. In execution, different. the 730 prom is 2x as large as the 165/808s. > >3. Has anyone used the Promgrammer98 from the SyTy page? Yes will it work >with the 730? I posted about that several weeks ago, yes, but with changes.. > >4. On the FTP Index page there is a AUJP bin listed for the 1227737, is >that supposed to be 1227730? Should be 1227730, the 727 is an underhood version of the 730. Bruce > > >Eric (The more I learn, the less I know) Aos > ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:33:55 -0500 Subject: Re: 730/808 questions Eric Aos wrote: > > 1. I just got a 6 Cyl. 730 ECU that will be used in a stock (for now) > Pontiac 400 V8 Application. Would a bin for a 92 TPI 5.7 be a good > starting place? and where might I find one? > See below. > 2. I've read up on Programming 808, but how does the 165/808 relate to > the 727/730 ? same tables, just different locations? > > 3. Has anyone used the Promgrammer98 from the SyTy page? will it work > with the 730? > Promgrammer is designed to work with a different ECM. Go to the archives, there's a couple of notes there. Look for "749 calibration". > 4. On the FTP Index page there is a AUJP bin listed for the 1227737, is > that supposed to be 1227730? > Yup. 1990 5.7l > Eric (The more I learn, the less I know) Aos It gets worse before it gets better. Shannen ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:02:08 -0500 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:31:03 +0100 "Espen Hilde" writes: >Hi all! >I have put on the coneshaped hat and are trowing in a thought: >Since the wide range uego sensor is pumping oxygen from atmosfere to the >tip of sensor and to what I understand we want to know how much current or >oxygen it takes to make the tip stokiometric.Is the oxygen that is pumped >used for making CO to CO2 and to burn away hydrocarbons at the tip? >If this is so, how can the sensor tell how much exhaust that is >passing the > >sensor to give a percentage? I would think that more exhaust flow means >more CO and HC exposed to the tip.Is it done mecanicaly in the design of >the housing?Have I missed something? >Espen Hilde. According to what I read, the testing chamber is seperated from the exhaust flow and the exhaust diffuese into the chamber at a known rate. Exhaust flow doesn't affect the reading, but pressure does. There was a lot of discussion about coming up with a table to compensate for this. Ray Drouillard ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:54:31 -0500 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 19:47:21 -0800 heinld theo writes: >Re: TC's and manual trans (was: Re: Smooth strategy) > > > > >>>No way--a two element torque converter is a violation of Newton's laws!!>> > >>>Regards, Greg>> > >Greg >I don't know much about Newton's laws however I have been under cars for >the last 45 years, working mostly on auto trans. so I know a little bit >about torque converters. To get torque multiplication in a 2 element TC >you need curved vanes plus a different number of blades (vanes) in the >turbine and impeller. There was usually a split guide ring (doughnut) as >well. While this arrangement is not as effective as a TC with a stator >it nevertheless multiplies torque and is therfore correctly termed a >Torque converter. > >Theo from downunder I have to side with Greg on this one. There is no way to get torque multiplication without some part of the torque converter being held still in relation with the rest of the system. In the classic "doughnut" TC that is commonly used, the stationary part is the vanes. What is held stationary on the two-element torque converter? Ray Drouillard ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:33:39 -0500 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:53:48 -0600 (CST) Roger Heflin writes: > > >On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > >> >Re: TC's and manual trans (was: Re: Smooth strategy) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>>No way--a two element torque converter is a violation of Newton's laws!!>> >> > >> >>>Regards, Greg>> >> > >> >Greg >> >I don't know much about Newton's laws however I have been under cars for >> >the last 45 years, working mostly on auto trans. so I know a little bit >> >about torque converters. To get torque multiplication in a 2 element TC >> >you need curved vanes plus a different number of blades (vanes) in the >> >turbine and impeller. There was usually a split guide ring (doughnut) as >> >well. While this arrangement is not as effective as a TC with a stator >> >it nevertheless multiplies torque and is therfore correctly termed a >> >Torque converter. >> > >> >Theo from downunder >> >> Let's don't mistake slip--lock-up speed characteristics for torque >> multiplication. If you have torque A coming into the unit on the input >> shaft, and torque B going out of it on the output shaft, For A to be >> different from B, there has GOT to be a torque reaction against the case. >> No way out of it. Otherwise we are talking about a close kin of the famous >> (?) 300mpg carburettor! >> > >Actaully I think this is how it works. The reason it multiplies is >much simpler, rpmin != rpmout. The easy model is more like >rpmin*torquein = rpmout*torqueout*efficiency. I don't believe there >is a torque reaction against the case (except waht is actually >decreasing efficiency). Basically if rpmout is 10% less that rpmin, >then you could boost torque by an appropiate amount to make the >quation balance out. Also generally this is probably a max torque >multiplication which may complicate the model above more, but I have >used this model in some program I have written and it is pretty >accurate with street convertors, with the high slippage convertors the >model above does not work exactly right. It is really no different >that having a gear that multiplies torque except it is less efficent >and somewhat more variable on the multiplications. Your equation is absolutely correct. The point that Greg is making is that any change in torque between input and output must be balanced by a reaction torque against something else. This is stated in first semester statics class as "The sum of the moments about any point is zero". torque in = reaction torque + torque out. Note that the reaction torque can be either positive or negative (it is a vector quantity). If the torque at the crankshaft is 250 Ft-Lbs and the output is 350 Ft-Lbs, the reaction torque is 100 Ft Lbs in the opposite direction of the output torque. This works for torque converters, gears, or whatever. In the case of gears, you have the force of the shaft against the case. Ray Drouillard ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:15:15 -0500 Subject: Re: PulseWidthModulation comments A common theme here is that people keep forgetting about the freewheeling diode. With a freewheeling diode, the current continues to flow (due to the inductance) when the is switched off. The inductive reactance doesn't inhibit the performance of the motor. In fact, it helps to smooth out the current. If the frequency and inductance are high enough, the current will not drop very quickly when the transister is turned off. Also, it won't rise very quickly when the transister is turned back on. The motor will see a DC current with a very small AC component. A switching regulater (like the one used in this computer) works the same way. It consists of a switching transister, a freewheeling diode, an inducter, and a feedback circuit. The goal, in this case, is to get the AC component (ripple) as small as possible. + supply ----------------| | | | | |---------|<|-------------| freewheeling diode | | ----- --- - When the switch is off, the current in the incuctor will want to keep flowing. This forward-biases the freewheeling diode (rather than creating a really nasty inductive "kick"). Current continues to flow through the diode until it decays, or the switch is switched back on. That way, the current through the motor, rahter than being chopped from 0 to maximum, actually only changes a fraction of a percent to a few percent - depending on the inductance and frequency. Ray Drouillard On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:36:29 -0600 Terry_Sare@xxx.com writes: >>From another list for robots: PWM comments. Funny that it shows up on >two >different list at the same time. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inserted from srs list <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Hi, > > The speed of the PWM for speed control of a DC motor is >*highly* >dependent on the motor you are controlling. For example, the little >3/8 >inch >diameter motor that I use require a PWM frequency of at least 20 KHz >(which >isn't doable with a standard HC11 setup). Luckily, most of us aren't >pushing the performance envelop, so most of the typical motors used in >mobile >robots can be run with a wide range of frequencies. > As far as the inductance, if you run the frequency up, the >inductive >field doesn't collapse as much, so the impedance isn't such a problem. >Depending on the motor, there are bad ranges, however. > > Cheers, Bill Harrison > http://www.sinerobotics.com > >Peter McCollum wrote: > >> 1000 ticks at 8 MHz would be 8 KHz, right? I'd say that that's much >too >> high. The inductance of a DC motor is probably high enough that the >8 Khz >> signal is seeing a very high impedance. Thus, very poor power >transfer. >> >> I would try 20,000 or 30,000 ticks instead - giving you 300-400 Hz. >> That's the range I'm using on two projects so far, and it seems to >work >> OK. >> >> Pete M. >> >> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:27:08 -0500 (EST) Derek Konigsberg >> writes: >> >> > Anyways, does anyone know what period works best for maximum >> >torque in PWM motor control? Right now, low speeds yield almost no >> >torque >> >and I can effortlessly stop the wheels with my hands. I'm using a >> >period >> >of 1000 clock ticks (8MHz clock) on a 68HC11E1. My high/low (duty >> >cycle) >> >> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.end insert >-----Original Message----- >From: rauscher@xxx.com] >Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 1:21 PM >To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu >Subject: Re: PulseWidthModulation comments > > > >Ludis wrote: >>Years ago as a summer intern I worked on a motor controller which >used >>PWM. A brushless DC motor ran on up to 120 to 170 volts at up to 10 >to >>15 amps. A switching (PWM) power supply controlled the voltage >applied >>to the motor. > >>An improved version used a microcontroller controlled digital PWM. I >>think the PWM frequency was about 20 KHz and the PWM had 5 bits of >>range. The same microcontroller monitored the motor position/speed >to >>form a closed loop system. > >Was this motor designed specifically for this freq? When I first >developed >this PWM motor controller, I was trying to run it at 20KHz also. But >the >motor was down on power. Motor was an AstroFlight cobalt, 9.6V at >35Amps, >such as those used in R/C model aircraft. Going to the lower freq >brought >the power back up. I looked at possibly skin effect, but the wire used >in >the >winds wasn't that large. > >>Some comments applicable to fuel pump / coolant fan PWM control: >> >>The pulse width and frequency needs to be very stable, otherwise all >the >>inductors in the circuit will squeal like stuck pigs. The original >>analog system screamed constantly. The digital system (running the >same >>switcher!) was totally silent as long as the pulse width wasn't >>changing. Software in the microcontroller updated the pulse width >every >>millisecond. When the pulse width needed to be changed often, this >>produced a 1 KHz tone from the electronics. The amount of noise was >>directly proportional to the load on the motor. You could actually >hear >>the computer "straining" against a high load. > >Sounds as thou the noise is from the P/S, and not the motor. I've only >heard a light whine from the motors, and only at lower speeds. So >hopefully >the noise won't be enough to drive folks out of the car . > >>The main switching transistor was a TO-220 package mounted on a dinky >>little heat sink. You don't need a massive TO-3 transistor. In the >>above system, cooling the rectifier diodes was actually more of a >problem. > >Oh so true, in the writeup I showed that even at 15 Amps, the MOSFET >only >needed to dissipate a little more than 5 watts. Only a small heat sink >required. >The key to the proper MOSFET, is low voltage drop through it. This >keeps >losses down and heat also. > >>BTW, in one mode, this motor was reversed every several tenths of a >>second. This applies to a thread from several weeks ago. > >My brain is fading here, possibly relative to a motor driven FPR? > >BobR. > >-- > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #90 **************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".